Is that an intelligently pragmatic principle to abide by, or does it serve to exacerbate corruption, or what?
2006-10-13 13:56:39 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Very seldom are we faced with easy choices. There is always a trade-off. This applies to buying houses, selecting a job opportunity, buying a car, or picking government servants. (yes, they are our servants.) Politics and compromise are functionally synonymous. Idealism is cute, but lethal, and cannot be made real by definition. (Or we'd call it Realism!)
Active participation in a third party, or even the usual ones, might be worthwhile, because that way you can influence party platforms or even run for office yourself. And you'd probably prefer yourself as a leader.
2006-10-13 14:13:48 · answer #1 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Corruption & politics are the same. They are inevitable.
But there always has to be a decision to be made; in the case of Michigan, do you vote for the guy who will always be watching out for just HIS bottom line, or the current status-quo that has managed to put our unemployment rate at all time highs?
Here, there is no alternative BUT to vote for the lesser of two evils! If we want to drive corruption out of government, we will find our skulls in the back of our convertables!
2006-10-13 14:12:41 · answer #2 · answered by Mintee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is an old political term, meaning the candidate you favored is no longer in the running. It has nothing to do with evil. Like the common southern expression "Better the devil you know." Has nothing to do with the devil. Ron Paul had good ideas on revamping our foreign policy, and beyond that, was just another anti-choice neocon.
2016-05-22 00:02:41 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I had always hoped that by not voting for the lesser of two evils, it would drive recognition of the need for a better choice... However, as I age, I am finding this is not really the case.
(oh also, I assume you meant that given two evil choices, you choose not to vote at all, if not, kindly disregard my answer :)
2006-10-13 14:01:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Voting for the lesser of two evils, is still voting for evil.
So vote 3rd party, and let your conscience rest easy!
2006-10-13 15:08:27 · answer #5 · answered by R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We live in a corrupt world, this will not change. But, if you don't vote your conscious, you let the corruption have its own way!
2006-10-13 14:06:44 · answer #6 · answered by wi_saint 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither... Every time, it is a conscious compromise due to inevitability of the situation !
2006-10-13 18:50:44 · answer #7 · answered by Spiritualseeker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it minimizes the risks of crashlanding on corrupted territory such as the suction force of the many whirlpools of doom.
2006-10-13 14:10:24 · answer #8 · answered by polly-pocket 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it is just as evil if not more so, to witness "a crime" (could this be a facetious remark you may wonder!) and remain silent.
2006-10-13 16:59:22 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
do as you like.
2006-10-13 14:56:30 · answer #10 · answered by prince47 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋